"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

shastacola:Speculation about the dead kid who can't tell his side of the story because he's dead-totally legit.Speculation that Zimmerman tailored his story to look like self defense- not based on fact. Right.

I'll admit that the beginning of the physical altercation isn't known 100%, but do you REALLY think Martin DIDN'T attack him? It is the most likely scenario, given what facts we do have. Proven? No. But likely.

Actually, I think the lesson is: if you defend yourself against a football playing, physically fit, aggressive 17-year-old who happens to be black, the state of Florida will try to railroad your ass no matter how little evidence of murder or manslaughter there is.

Maybe the lesson is this: if the person you are pummeling is screaming for help like a little girl, you should probably stop or he might think the only choice hehas is to pull out his gun and shoot you.

Discussed this yesterday with an in shape security guy. He was all 'If you get me on the ground punching me in the face like that, I will shoot you'. Then he mentioned GZ's lack of physical prowess. I pointed out that what it would take to get him down in that position would be a lot, whereas GZ could just step back too fast and could fall over shouldn't determine death for someone. He didn't totally get the point. Security guy has been in many fights and never shot anyone because he knows how to get away if he isn't winning or take a punch or two, but GZ may have used bad judgement and can't take a beating. Dying from one guy with fists is very unlikely, but dying from a guy with gun is ....

Last thing they teach in the police academy is that if you're on your back, pinned down, and you think there's any chance that you can lose consciousness ... shoot to kill. If you lose consciousness, that means your gun is free for the taking and you are defenseless.

nekom:Lem Motlow: Maybe the lesson is this: if the person you are pummeling is screaming for help like a little girl, you should probably stop or he might think the only choice hehas is to pull out his gun and shoot you.

The takeaway here is don't go out looking for trouble in the first place. Creepy ass-cracker following you? Just walk away. Let it go, man, because you just NEVER know who has a gun. Pride was Martin's downfall. Some half formed notion that he had to prove how tough he was to someone who would dare follow him, that's what ultimately did him in.

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Zimmerman would not have gotten the benefit of this particular jury instruction in any state in which a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force to meet a threat of deadly force.

If you're on the ground with someone on top of you, how do you retreat?

You don't. The instruction goes to another element of the case, which was Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin, an element that was stressed by the prosecution right off the reel. The context of my post was an assertion by another poster here that Zimmerman would have been acquitted anywhere; I am not so sure of that.

Before the trial, I did no research, I only heard what the mainstream media reported, including the chopped up 911 call NBC played.

When the trial started, I listened to it every day at work, starting out rooting for the prosecution.

As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

THIS! We only have the evidence and the survivor's testimony, if nothing foul is found, what he says happened, happened.

nekom:shastacola:Speculation about the dead kid who can't tell his side of the story because he's dead-totally legit.Speculation that Zimmerman tailored his story to look like self defense- not based on fact. Right.

I'll admit that the beginning of the physical altercation isn't known 100%, but do you REALLY think Martin DIDN'T attack him? It is the most likely scenario, given what facts we do have. Proven? No. But likely.

Even if he did attack him, that still doesn't mean Zimmerman was so fearful that he would die that he felt his only option was to kill Martin.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

lack of warmth:Maybe he could get a room from Casey Anthony. Maybe all the folks that society feels morally shouldn't be free get a place together out of society's sight.

We'll call it the Injustice League.

They could have a weekly drinking night where they celebrate their freedom and Skype with OJ just so they can laugh at him mercilessly for getting caught doing something else after beating the murder rap.

Southern100:Elegy: Southern100: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: therhinodep: If it makes some of you feel better, I just heard Zimmerman did not walk away from this totally unscathed. He has been demoted from neighborhood watch captain to neighborhood watch lieutenant.

Did they takes away his gun?

Is he going to have to stab his way to an acquittal now?

Gave him back his gun, kept his bullets.

The gun is garbage. Have you seen it? It's all bent up. The tube is bent up, the slide is unable to close because of it.. Probably because of the point blank shot. The gun will never be used again.

Meh, PF-9's cost something like 200 bucks. They're pretty disposable.

I know, just seems kinda pointless to give it back to him, although I guess he can frame it.

The tube barrel is at angle because the slide is pulled back and locked. If you release the slide it will go back to straight. Its not really bent unless I'm missing something else in that picture

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends. The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything. He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed. He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT. NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT. PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

thornhill:nekom: shastacola:Speculation about the dead kid who can't tell his side of the story because he's dead-totally legit.Speculation that Zimmerman tailored his story to look like self defense- not based on fact. Right.

I'll admit that the beginning of the physical altercation isn't known 100%, but do you REALLY think Martin DIDN'T attack him? It is the most likely scenario, given what facts we do have. Proven? No. But likely.

Even if he did attack him, that still doesn't mean Zimmerman was so fearful that he would die that he felt his only option was to kill Martin.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

tirob:Here in Pennsylvania we still have a duty to retreat and the sky hasn't fallen on us yet.

SYG didn't apply here, as even with a duty to retreat, his self defense claim is valid.

I will say that I believe a duty to retreat is proper, and as a gun owner, it is my MORAL obligation to retreat if able. I would NEVER want to kill someone. If push came to shove, I am confident that looking at the business end of a 12 gauge is enough to diffuse most any situation. I would kill or die to protect my daughter, but I would do neither to protect my stuff. I don't own anything worth killing or dying for, and I'm a tad over-insured.

Hopefully even that will never come up, as my entire block (if you can call it a block, rural living FTW) is about the LEAST friendly looking place for anyone who doesn't belong here. It's the kind of place where if you wound up at night you'd be terrified that you're about to hear banjo music.

iq_in_binary:Penman: iq_in_binary: Penman: Pincy: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

So we have video of how this whole thing went down?

A 911 call and the injuries to Zimmerman.

Yes, a 911 call where Zimmerman admitted to pursuing Martin. Despite being told not to.

Active pursuit is threatening behavior. That's instigating a fight. Like I said, he was losing a fight he started, and like a little biatch pulled the gun because he was a sore loser.

You can turn around and violently attack someone because they're walking down the same street as you? "Yes Officer, I thought he was pursuing me, I just didn't like the way he looked, so I beat the shiat out of him"In fact it seems like Trayvon might be the racist one, assuming that the Mexican guy is out to get him.

Ok, I'm heavy on the self defense opinion myself, I think we may have started off on the wrong foot.

Let me explain, I have insight into the legal system that you do not have. I was a legal investigator. A good one, I charged $150/hr for static surveillance and $225/hr plus the rates of other investigators helping me for dynamic surveillance. That's right, my job was following people.

Let's get something straight, following people in a menacing manner IS against the law. For us? Unless we we're in confined quarters like a bar or strip club or restaurant, the general rule is stay the fark outside of a 20-30 yard bubble. Why? Because any closer can be considered menacing. Investigators have been charged with intimidation, stalking, disorderly behavior, you name it for trailing people. Because guess what, constantly following people around IS generally considered in the court of law to be threatening behavior.

As a "legal professional" (don't kid yourself, I was hired muscle for lawyers, and because of who I worked for it was TECHNICALLY legal, though morally wrong) I have both a wide breadth when it comes to defending myself but also a pretty close look at how the criminal element and how unfavorably it treats those not working for the system. I'm also fairly liberal now, so I try and confine my use of force worthy situations to as small a list of justifiable situations as possible. Basically, the mantra is, GET THE fark AWAY. Why? Showing that you did the best you could to avoid the situation in the first place goes a long way in criminal cases towards showing necessity of your actions. Awareness, Detection, Evasion. Be aware, detect the threat, and do your best to get the fark away from it. Failing that, preemptive offense. I've worked for many a lawyer, one of whom has personally taken a police chief in front of the SCOTUS and biatch slapped him up one side the court and down the other over a rejected CCW application. He told me to write a book on self defense after discussing this subject at length, and offered to write the forward.

Zimmerman pursued. In a sane world, that would preempt a self defense claim. He wasn't a cop, he was armed against Neighborhood Watch rules, etc.. That he's walking around free when it very well could have been me that he tried to chase that night because I was doing an asset check is disturbing. Why? Because the best way to diffuse a violent situation is to get away from it. That there is a legal climate in any state of our union that justifies someone pursuing (which like I said, for me, IS criminal behavior if they spot me and I'm closer than 20-30 yards) thus starting a fight (I kind of have to think that way because my mere presence is very detrimental to them, it means their life is about to take a turn for the worse if I live to turn in that affidavit, motive AND opportunity considering they're in visible range of me), and shooting someone when they end up losing the fight(which is again likely with me, I took hand to hand and defensive pistol training very seriously), is a VERY BAD THING.

In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.

Did you do this work in Florida? If not, it doesn't appear to mean shiat.

As a citizen who's been jumped before in the dark (by 2 cracker ass crackers) I'm a fan of self defense doctrines as well. This being said, it's important to your LOCAL laws. Not that I think Zim did, I think he got lucky.

However, if I saw someone in a restaraunt that I mistakenly thought I knew and I followed him outside to say hi, I'd like to think that I would have some recourse if he saw me follow him and decided to jump me in the parking lot.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends. The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything. He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed. He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT. NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT. PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

The Muthaship:thornhill: The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police

It actually boggles my mind that there are idiots STILL saying this.

911 transcript:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?Zimmerman: YeahDispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.Zimmerman: Ok

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends. The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything. He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed. He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT. NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT. PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

The Muthaship: thornhill: The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police

It actually boggles my mind that there are idiots STILL saying this.

911 transcript:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?Zimmerman: YeahDispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.Zimmerman: Ok

Exactly. Don't need you to and I command that you don't are not the same.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends. The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything. He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed. He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT. NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT. PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

The Muthaship: thornhill: The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police

It actually boggles my mind that there are idiots STILL saying this.

911 transcript:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?Zimmerman: YeahDispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.Zimmerman: Ok

Exactly. Don't need you to and I command that you don't are not the same.

You're disingenuously playing semantics. In the heat of the moment when an authority figure says, "we don't need you to do that," that's going to be interpreted as, "don't do it," not, "this person is only phrasing it this way because of liability reason."

Further, however Zimmerman may have interpreted or understood what the dispatcher said, he was still following Martin. However dangerous he thought Martin could be, obviously not too dangerous to follow him and potentially be discovered.

nekom:tirob:Here in Pennsylvania we still have a duty to retreat and the sky hasn't fallen on us yet.

SYG didn't apply here, as even with a duty to retreat, his self defense claim is valid..

Zimmerman's self-defense claim may have been valid even with a duty to retreat, but SYG most definitely *was* applied in this case; it formed part of the judge's charge to the jury, as I cited in my post at 8:48.

Heron:UNC_Samurai: This is about the prosecution being unable to put together a compelling case.

You don't go to jail just for being proven a racist asshole.

I think it's more the jury not understanding their instruction. 2nd degree murder was a stretch, but an armed person starting an altercation which ends in the death of another is classic manslaughter. That they didn't convict on that charge shows they either didn't understand the conditions for that verdict, or chose not to apply them.

Igor Jakovsky:Southern100: Elegy: Southern100: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: therhinodep: If it makes some of you feel better, I just heard Zimmerman did not walk away from this totally unscathed. He has been demoted from neighborhood watch captain to neighborhood watch lieutenant.

Did they takes away his gun?

Is he going to have to stab his way to an acquittal now?

Gave him back his gun, kept his bullets.

The gun is garbage. Have you seen it? It's all bent up. The tube is bent up, the slide is unable to close because of it.. Probably because of the point blank shot. The gun will never be used again.

Meh, PF-9's cost something like 200 bucks. They're pretty disposable.

I know, just seems kinda pointless to give it back to him, although I guess he can frame it.

The tube barrel is at angle because the slide is pulled back and locked. If you release the slide it will go back to straight. Its not really bent unless I'm missing something else in that picture

Huh...never fired one...seems like an odd design for a pistol. Any mechanical advantage?

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."